Perhaps in concept the greatest and most noteworthy issue I take with the idea is that the portrayal is unlikely to be a real, credible tribute to that person. Ignoring all of the potentially strange and even slightly disturbing and depraved things that could come with it, it feels terribly insincere in concept and I would argue, do in fact, it is at least as problematic as attempting canon characters, yet is one shade worse. While of course people are free to do so, I see no reasonable or possible attraction to the idea on that issue alone.
The individual is not really "them", they are a doppelganger, a fake, a dupe, portrayed by someone else attempting to be them. The odds they would behave appropriately are limited, if not almost assuredly inaccurate. Perhaps that is just ignored for the sake of the event and experience, but for myself, if I even had so much as an icon as that? I suspect I would find my suspension of disbelief dashed or my patience tested whenever anything that seems inappropriate to their person is played out. It creates an air of inherent dissonance that would inevitably permeate all of the idea, where things will not simply connect as they "should". It would be an even greater disassociation from the goal, I reason.
It comes with a certain expectation, one I doubt most would ever meet in their portrayal and that is just as an observer looking in, theorizing and hypothesizing. Mayhap that is not the case, that the portrayal might be remarkable and good experiences abound, but the simplest answer suggests that is unlikely, at least for myself. Though I will concede the whole concept is alien to me, especially with the issue of escapism versus mundanity; it is still fantasy of course, but it all appears much too normal.
To each's own, but the proposal is lost on me.
